Lord Hugh Cecil's other point was the question of resisting
the law if it is tainted with injustice. Though it would be premature to prescribe for Churchmen their duty in circumstances which have not yet arisen, Lord Hugh declares that "we should be mad to overlook the material influence that ' passive resistance' has had in framing the present Bill, and the weight. that is attached to the fear of Roman Catholic resistance if Clause IV. is not moulded to their liking. We must not let it be thought that Churchmen are less zealous for their religious opinions than Nonconformists or Roman Catholics, or that if illegal action is to be tolerated in others, they will shrink from availing themselves of so powerful a weapon." These words, we are told, were rapturously applauded at the meeting. We may point out that Lord Hugh's view on this. point is in absolute contradiction to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who at the very beginning of the controversy rejected alto- gether the' notion that Churchmen were to copy Noncon- formists in refusing to obey a law which they disliked. We cannot help thinking that here, as in other matters which concern the safety and good government of the Church of England, both laity and clergy will be wise to follow the Primate of All England rather than Lord Hugh CeciL If the Church cannot set an example of obedience to the law of the land, she will forfeit her claim to be a national Church. Happily, we do not believe that she will, to borrow a phrase from Lord Hugh, be so mad as to suffer such a forfeiture.
Previous page
